Deployment of special forces exposes Policing Board

The revelation that the PSNI Chief Constable Hugh Orde has requested support from
Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR) to help gather intelligence has highlighted once again the limitations of police accountability in the north. This was clearly illustrated in the manner the information was made public. Only hours after the Policing Board conducted its monthly question and answer session with the chief constable, in which the activities of republican groups had been raised, the local BBC evening news broke the story on the deployment of special forces. That Hugh Orde chose not to inform the Policing Board about such a significant and politically controversial development is a clear indication that the leadership of the security forces feel no obligation towards it. Indeed, the likely leaking of story by security sources reveals some degree of contempt.

The deployment and the manner in which it was reported are particularly embarrassing for Sinn Fein and the SDLP, who have sold the peace process to a large extent on police reform and the creation of new policing structures. Orde’s request for special forces support exposes the limitations of that reform. It demonstrates publicly that the security forces in the north are not wholly accountable to local political representatives. The SSR is not under the scrutiny or the control of the Policing Board. Nor would would this unit of the British Army be accoutable to any future justice minister from the devolved administration at Stormont. Like the MI5 officers based at its regional headquarters in Holywood, County Down, this unit answers only to military commanders and ministers back in London.

Predictably Sinn Fein and the SDLP registered their complaints over this. The SDLP issued a statement claiming that the decision to deploy the unity raised “the issue of who is in control". Martin McGuinness said army special forces were a "major threat”; that the decision to deploy them had "shaken his confidence" in the chief constable; and that he had raised the matter with Gordon Brown and Brian Cowen. (The British and Irish governments subsequently indicated their full support for the deployment.) However, the anger from the nationalist parties derives more from the pricking of the illusions they had built up around the Policing Board than the substance of the decision to deploy special forces. The reality is that the Policing Board does not, never had and never will have a scrutiny role over matters, such as the activities of republican groups, that are deemed to fall within realm of “national security”. This was set out clearly in the St Andrews Agreement that set the terms for the restoration of the Assembly and Executive, and Sinn Fein’s participation in the Policing Board.

To a degree the deployment of special forces is largely symbolic. Despite being officially withdrawn in 1997 they never stopped operating in the north. Indeed, there are indications that the SRR have been targeting republicans for more than two years. Last October the Irish News revealed how a special unit was already operating against republicans. It was reported that nine members of a special forces unit carried out surveillance on three suspects arrested in connection with a mortar bomb find near Lurgan in March 2007. At that time the Secretary of State issued public interest immunity (PII) certificates banning the soldiers or their unit being identified. In October 2008 the soldiers gave evidence in the subsequent trial via satellite from Afghanistan and Iraq were they were stationed. Others units, such as the successor to the notorious Force Research Unit (Fru) which was revealed to have been involved in more than a dozen murders, also continue to operate. Now known as the Joint Support Group, is thought to have around 50 undercover soldiers in the north carrying out human intelligence operations handling informers.

The SRR itself absorbed the 14th Intelligence Company ('The Det'), a special plainclothes surveillance unit created in 1973, specifically for operations in the north. Though only in existence since 2005, the SSR has already been linked to a number of high profile incidents. It has been reported that that SRR personnel were involved in the intelligence collection effort that lead to the shooting of a Brazilian man on the London underground in July 2005. Later that that year Iraqi police arrested two SRR personnel in Basra who were acting suspiciously - it was reported that they were disguised in Arab dress and that weapons and explosives were found in their car.

The SRR is also thought to be active in Afghanistan, assisting the SAS in seeking out Taliban leadership targets. The fact that their presence in north has now been publicly acknowledged suggests an intensification of the crackdown on republicans.

Between a rock, a hard place and a Stonyford

Yet more evidence of the fragility of the St. Andrews agreement and its inability to provide a solution to the endemic sectarianism of the Northern statelet was provided by the departure of a Catholic family from Stoneyford, just outside Belfast.

The family were the latest victims of a long campaign of ethnic cleansing organised by local loyalists – a campaign so blatant that the organiser is a minor celeb, known by name to the press, political activists and many members of the public across the North. The latest campaign culminated in a death threat against the young son in the family and a threat that their home would be bombed.

The reactions of local politicians reflected their role in the sectarian set-up. Jeffrey Donaldson, confronted with this coercion, washed his hands of it. Apparently the family had had the cheek to suggest that DUP supporters were involved in the intimidation.

The local RUC/PSNI expressed regret. Despite the threats extending over many years in a small village, with the leading perpetrator publicly known, they had been unable to obtain any leads.

Perhaps the most pathetic response was from the local Sinn Fein representative, Paul Butler. Pleading with the police to ‘do their job’ he might have been any nationalist politician from the original Stormont parliament or from the generations before that.

But it is not enough to observe these events. It is necessary to understand them and to do that you have to observe the context. The context of the various interviews that took place was the background of a new build housing development bedecked with Union flags and loyalist regalia. It was pretty evident that these were warnings to Catholics not to settle here.

No-one asked who had erected the flags. No-one suggested that the symbols of sectarian hate be taken down. Despite all the rhetoric the new society, the new police force, are not disposed to repress loyalist bigotry or protect the victims.

For all that the PSNI are not exactly the RUC. The RUC would have advised the Catholics to go. It was a single RUC station that, along with the local loyalists, emptied Rathcoole of its large Catholic population in the ‘70s – an episode of ethnic cleansing that, for the size of population, ranks with major historic episodes in Europe.

In the new society everyone has some sectarian rights (not equal ones of course). Sectarian intimidation is simply someone expressing their culture and the task of the police is conflict resolution. So it is not surprising that, when a Catholic priest took down a flag nailed outside his church, he was advised to return it. When a father complained that his dead son’s name had been raised on an Orange bonfire as a sectarian taunt, he was advised to see community relations. It is hardly surprising that the police in Stoneyford organised a meeting between the Catholic victims and the chief loyalist intimidator. Perhaps the answer in another grant for loyalist groups or the Orange order – maybe funnelled through the Irish government or the president?

The situation in the North is kept stable by the willingness of Sinn Fein to accept anything that is thrown at them and by a tremendous complacency on the part of their constituency. It is not a stability that can last forever. When it wears off the Provo supporters will want to know why Sinn Fein, through the policing boards, are party to a system that placates loyalist thugs and turns a blind eye to sectarian intimidation.

DUP rejects transfer of policing powers

The DUP’s rejection of the transfer of policing and justice powers to the Assembly has exposed yet again the vacuous claims of Sinn Fein for the St Andrews Agreement. We were told that St Andrews laid down a firm timetable for the devolution of these powers by May 2008. However, when Gordon Brown and Bertie Ahern recently made an appeal for movement on this issue, it provoked a fierce rejection from the DUP.

Senior members of the party lined up to denounce the proposal. Peter Robinson insisted the DUP had never signed up to a target for the transfer of policing and justice powers. He said that such a move would only happen when there was “the necessary support within the community”. Nigel Dodds said the issue was "not on the agenda". These views were echoed by DUP leader and First Minister Ian Paisley. He said that he had “absolutely no intention of bringing such a proposal to the Assembly as the necessary conditions do not exist." He didn’t detail the conditions, but mentioned the disbandment of the “IRA/Sinn Fein army council” and also the need for financial support from the British Treasury. However, the fundamental condition he laid down was the need for confidence within the unionist community.

The essential message from the DUP was that if unionists were uneasy at the prospect of nationalists having any role (no matter how minor) in administering the police and judiciary in the north it won’t happen. This is basically a reasserting of the unionist veto, albeit dressed up in the language of consensus. Paisley also denied that his party had agreed this at St Andrews. He said that it was “not our idea and we never agreed to it."

Not that the DUP leader has to worry about pressure from the British or Irish governments. Their appeal on the transfer of powers was extremely week. They merely said they believed “the time is right” for such a move, and that they stood “ready to help the political parties”. No hint of coercion or pressure here. Indeed, after the negative response from the DUP, they drew back from their timid proposal. A spokesman for the Irish Government acknowledged that the deadline was not likely to be met and “would accept that there may be some slippage.”

Sinn Fein were left floundering by all this. Gerry Adams made the astonishing claim, particularly in the light of the statements from their leadership, that the “DUP has agreed with the broad principles of all of these matters”. For him it was “only a matter of timing”, although he wasn’t prepared to set a time frame; presumably this is down the DUP. Sinn Fein’s policing spokesperson Alex Maskey said the party was “working very much with a mind that the transfer of policing and justice will happen by the May time-frame, and that is an agreement.”

The contrast of such statements to reality is stark. It could be described as a state of denial. But Sinn Fein can do little else, as to recognise the reality of the situation would be to admit complete failure. We are witnessing the same process we had with the Belfast Agreement. Sinn Fein in the role of the faithful defenders of a settlement they insist is being implemented, while the unionists, with the endorsement of the British and Irish Governments, pick it apart and bring it down. This is happening even more quickly with the St Andrews Agreement as it was pretty threadbare to begin with. The few gestures towards nationalists, such as the Irish Language Act and the devolution of justice and policing powers, have been junked already.

PSNI presses ahead with introduction of taser weapons

The weakness of claims that the police in the north are being made accountable and subjected to scrutiny has been exposed by the announcement from the PSNI that it is to press ahead with the introduction of taser weapons. Within the next few weeks a small number of officers will begin training in their use when twelve of the guns are to be issued to specialist response teams. These particular weapons will be capable of delivering a 50,000-volt shock to a subject.

The dangers of such weapons are well documented. People can be in serious risk of injury, or in some cases death, when tasers are used. Figures show that more than 270 people have died after being shot by a taser in the US and Canada since 2001. Recent examples of the use of tasers have been the killing of a distressed Polish man at Vancouver airport and the ejection of an audience member from a political meting in Florida.

These incidents, which were captured on camera, provoked widespread condemnation. However, such incidents have not given pause for thought to the PSNI. Of course they assure the public that tasers won’t be used as they are in north America; that only a small number of officers will carry them; and that they will only be used as a last resort. These are the familiar arguments that accompany the introduction of any new piece of weaponry by the police. Experience shows however that over time the use of the weapon becomes routine and is often the first response. Just look at the example of CS spray.

The danger of tasers has been the main focus of the commentary over their introduction. But what is of greater significance is that they have been introduced in defiance of the Policing Board. The body, which is supposed to hold the police to account, voted 11 to five in favour of a motion calling for no deployment until an impact assessment was completed. In addition, the Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the Police Ombudsman all cautioned against the introduction of tasers. Therefore, all the institutions created by Good Friday Agreement, which are supposed to act as guarantors of accountability and human rights, were ignored. In the face of the determination of police to acquire a new weapon their protestations counted for nothing. Moreover, the ultimate guarantors of the whole peace process, the Irish government and (most importantly) the British government, did nothing to intervene.

This episode while relatively minor does illuminate a broader truth about the nature of the political settlement. Despite the claims for devolution and power sharing, real power still remains with the British state. Nationalists may sit on the Policing Board but they cannot hold the police to account; they be in government but can’t make a decision without the approval of unionists. These two elements come together in the proposal to devolve justice and policing powers to the Assembly. This was part of the deal between Sinn Fein and the British to pave the way for the restoration of power sharing, but because the DUP are opposed it will not happen.

Sinn Fein are reduced to making muted protests. They cannot make it an issue of contention as that would reveal their own bankruptcy and risk bringing the whole edifice of the settlement crashing down. Determined to hold onto their ministerial positions they are forced to swallow whatever humiliations and disappointments the British and the unionists serve up.

Support your local Sheriff!

At the bottom of the Glen Road in West Belfast a large sign has been erected reading “No bail for Killers”. At one level this represents a call for vengeance from a local family against young thugs accused of the murder of a local shopkeeper, and in many parts of Britain and Ireland would be totally unremarkable.

At another level it is a totally astounding statement, representing an astonishing collapse of political consciousness by the republican base in the area and more generally across the North. This is a community that for three decades organised and fought against a whole series of repressive laws, that saw the judicial and state apparatus as the enemies of freedom, that suffered internment, torture and random killings by the state forces and their paramilitary supporters. Now this community not only looks unthinkingly to the state and judiciary to protect it, it calls for the state to have more repressive powers and for the rights of defendants to be restricted.

There is of course a third level that helps explain the others and that rests in the cynical manipulation of Sinn Fein. The sign was not written by the bereaved family or by the community at large. It was written by those responsible for most of the signs and proclamations in the area – the local Sinn Fein cumann.

The Provos, having cynically justified their support for the police on the ludicrous claim that they would “put manners” on them, have no choice but to justify their turn by offering unconditional support to the state and to become the party of law and order, bringing forward the police and repression as the solution to the social ills arising from the failures of their own struggle and the social decay they left behind. Their shift to the right is best illustrated by their proxy paper, the “Andersonstown News”. Following weeks of centre-page interviews with the local RUC/PSNI, the paper picked on a hapless local hood, gave him front page status and demanded that the police “do something” about him, crowed victory when the cops came up with an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) and then urged their readers to inform if their target was seen outside in curfew time. One reader obliged and the hood ended up behind bars. No-one complained that the ASBO system is a way of jailing people without having to prove that they have broken the law.

Any examination of a standard capitalist society will tell you very quickly that the police, still less the RUC/PSNI, are very definitely not there to protect the working class. The reason they continue to attract support is that shoring them up and demanding that workers kow-tow to them is one of the primary duties of capitalist politicians and the institutions of the state. The Sinners are doing their job – supporting the local sheriff, Its up to socialists to demonstrate the futility of their reactionary politics.

Rud eile.

Just when you thought the Andersonstown News couldn’t get any worse, their columns fill with reactionary denunciations of striking classroom assistants. Did I mention the role of the capitalist media in the protection of property rights and the suppression of the workers?